Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV31840, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31840    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Phillip Broadnax filed this action against Defendant Urban Commons Crenshaw Blvd LLC (“Defendant”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall on Defendant’s property. 

At this time, AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”) moves for leave to intervene in the case on behalf of its insured, Defendant, a suspended corporation.  AMCO asserts that Defendant is incapable of defending itself because of its status.  The motion is unopposed. 

Per CCP §387(a), permissive intervention is proper if:

• The nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; and

• The intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case; and

• The reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties.

A liability insurer normally cannot intervene in a tort action against its insured to contest whether the claim against the insured is covered under its policy.  The judgment in the tort action collaterally estops the insurer only on issues necessarily adjudicated therein—i.e., the insured's liability and the amount of the injured party's damages. It does not bind the insurer on coverage issues.  (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Parks) (2011) 199 CA4th 1196, 1212.)  

However, because a liability insurer agrees to pay any judgment obtained against its insured (see Ins.C. §11580(b)(2)), it has the right to intervene (not merely permissive) where an insured is barred from defending itself.  In such cases, intervention is necessary to protect the insurer's own interests because it may be obligated to pay any judgment rendered against its insured (assuming no coverage defenses). Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 CA4th 383, 386–387. 

Furthermore, concerning a suspended corporation, “when an insurance company seeks to provide a defense in pending litigation for a corporation that has been suspended for nonpayment of its taxes, the insurance company must intervene in the action to protect its own interests and those of its insured. The insurance company may not answer and litigate the lawsuit in the name of the suspended corporation without intervening in the case.”  (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 216.)

In this case, AMCO adequately establishes a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, and Defendant’s inability to defend itself requires permission to intervene.  Further, AMCO seeks leave to protect its own interests and the interests of the insured because Defendant is a suspended corporation and cannot defend itself.

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore the motion is granted.  AMCO is ordered to file a separate copy of its answer-in-intervention[1] within ten days.  

AMCO is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 9^th day of January 2023